throbber
Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 86
` Entered: August 24, 2016
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. and AMNEAL
`PHARMACEUTICALS LLC,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`YEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B21
`____________
`
`
`
`Before SHERIDAN K. SNEDDEN, ZHENYU YANG, and
`TINA E. HULSE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HULSE, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`FINAL WRITTEN DECISION
`35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Case IPR2015-01980 has been joined with Case IPR2015-00644.
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a corrected
`Petition requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–20 of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,399,413 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’413 patent”). Paper 8
`(“Pet.”). Yeda Research & Development Co. Ltd. (“Patent Owner”)
`filed a Preliminary Response to the Petition. Paper 12 (“Prelim.
`Resp.”). On August 25, 2015, we instituted an inter partes review of
`claims 1–20 on two grounds of obviousness. Paper 14 (“Dec. Inst.”),
`16. Patent Owner filed a Response to the Petition. Paper 27 (“PO
`Resp.”). Petitioner filed a Reply to Patent Owner’s Response. Paper
`59 (“Pet. Reply”).
`On September 25, 2015, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC
`(“Amneal”) also filed a Petition requesting an inter partes review of
`claims 1–20 of the ’413 patent in case IPR2015-01980 (“the -1980
`case”). IPR2015-01980, Paper 1. Amneal filed a motion to join
`the -1980 case with this case. Id., Paper 3. On December 28, 2015,
`we granted Amneal’s Petition and its motion for joinder. Id., Paper 9.
`Accordingly, we terminated the -1980 case and joined the -1980 case
`with this case.
`Both parties filed motions to exclude certain exhibits and
`testimony. Paper 68 (Patent Owner); Paper 70 (Petitioner). Both
`parties filed oppositions. Paper 76 (Petitioner Opposition); Paper 73
`(Patent Owner Opposition). And both parties filed replies in support
`of their motions to exclude. Paper 80 (Patent Owner Reply); Paper 81
`(Petitioner Reply).
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner filed observations on the cross-examination of
`Petitioners’ declarants, Ari Green, M.D. and Joel W. Hay, Ph.D.
`Paper 72. Petitioner filed a response to Patent Owner’s observations.
`Paper 78.
`An oral hearing for this proceeding was held on May 11, 2016,
`a transcript of which has been entered in the record. Paper 85 (“Tr.”)
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c). This Final
`Written Decision is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73.
`For the reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has
`shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 of the
`’413 patent are unpatentable.
`Related Proceedings
`A.
`Petitioner states that it is a defendant in several litigations
`involving the ’413 patent. Pet. 2. Petitioner also identifies numerous
`other cases against other defendants involving the ’413 patent. Id.
`We also instituted inter partes review of related patents in
`IPR2015-00643 (US 8,232,250 B2) and IPR2015-00830 (US
`8,969,302 B2).
`
`The ’413 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`B.
`Multiple sclerosis (“MS”) is a chronic, autoimmune disease of
`the central nervous system. Ex. 1001, 1:16–18. There are five main
`forms of MS, including Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis
`(“RRMS”). Id. at 1:29. Patients suffering from RRMS experience
`sporadic exacerbations or relapses, as well as periods of remission.
`Id. at 1:30–31.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`
`Glatiramer acetate (“GA” or “copolymer-1”) is a mixture of
`polypeptides that do not all have the same amino acid sequence, and is
`marketed as Copaxone®. Id. at 1:63–65. Administering 20 mg per
`day of Copaxone is an FDA-approved therapy for patients with
`RRMS. Id. at 2:13–16. The ’413 patent discloses “an effective low
`frequency dosage regimen of GA administration to patients suffering
`from a relapsing form of [MS], including patients who have
`experienced a first clinical episode and have MRI features consistent
`with [MS].” Id. at 2:43–47. The disclosed method comprises
`administering to a patient suffering from RRMS three subcutaneous
`injections of a therapeutically effective dose of GA over a period of
`seven days with at least one day between every subcutaneous injection
`to alleviate a symptom of the patient. Id. at 2:51–60.
`Illustrative Claim
`C.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–20 of the ’413 patent.
`Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
`1. A method of reducing the frequency of relapses in a
`human patient suffering from relapsing-remitting multiple
`sclerosis or a patient who has experienced a first clinical
`episode and has MRI features consistent with multiple
`sclerosis comprising administering to the human patient a
`three
`therapeutically effective dosage
`regimen of
`subcutaneous injections of 1 ml of a pharmaceutical
`composition comprising 40 mg of glatiramer acetate over
`a period of seven days with at least one day between every
`subcutaneous injection, the regimen being sufficient to
`reduce the frequency of relapses in the patient.
`
`Ex. 1001, 16:26–36 (emphasis on limitation at issue added).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`
`Claims 19 and 20 are the remaining independent claims, and both
`claims recite the same dosing limitation of “three subcutaneous
`injections of 1 ml of a pharmaceutical composition comprising 40 mg
`of glatiramer acetate over a period of seven days with at least one day
`between every subcutaneous injection.” Id. at 18:4–7 (claim 19),
`18:19–22 (claim 20).
`D. Grounds of Unpatentability Instituted for Trial
`We instituted trial based on the following grounds of
`unpatentability:
`Claim(s)
`1–20
`
`Basis
`§ 103
`
`1–20
`
`
`
`§ 103
`
`References
`Pinchasi2 and the 1996
`SBOA3
`Pinchasi and Flechter4
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`The Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`A.
`The parties dispute the proper definition of a person of ordinary
`skill in the art. Petitioner contends that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have had (1) several years of experience in the
`pharmaceutical industry or in practicing medicine; (2) experience with
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Irit Pinchasi, WO 2007/081975 A2, published July 19, 2007
`(Ex. 1005).
`3 Summary Basis of Approval (“SBOA”) for the New Drug
`Application for 20 mg daily Copaxone ® (NDA #20-622) (Ex. 1007).
`4 S. Flechter et al., Copolymer 1 (Glatiramer Acetate) in Relapsing
`Forms of Multiple Sclerosis: Open Multicenter Study of Alternate-Day
`Administration, 25 CLINICAL NEUROPHARM. 11–15 (2002) (Ex. 1008).
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`the administration or formulation of therapeutic agents, dosing
`schedules and frequencies, and drug developmental study and design;
`and (3) a Ph.D. in pharmacology or be a physician with experience in
`clinical pharmacology. Pet. 12. In its Preliminary Response, Patent
`Owner disagreed with Petitioner’s definition because it does not
`include experience with MS or GA, which, according to Patent
`Owner, are both requirements for a person of ordinary skill in the art.
`Prelim. Resp. 34–35.
`In our Decision to Institute, we agreed with Patent Owner that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art should have experience with MS and
`GA. Dec. Inst. 5. We noted that one of Petitioner’s declarants, Dr.
`Ari Green, states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
`“direct experience administering therapeutic agents for the treatment
`of MS, as well as familiarity with the dosing schedules and
`frequencies of the different therapeutic agents available for MS
`treatment.” Id. (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 27).
`During trial, neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner party
`contested our definition of the level of a person of ordinary skill in the
`art. Upon considering the full record, we see no reason to deviate
`from our prior determination, and we adopt Petitioner’s definition of a
`person of ordinary skill in the art, with the addition that that person
`would also have experience treating MS with GA.
`Claim Construction
`B.
`In an inter partes review, the Board interprets claim terms in an
`unexpired patent according to the broadest reasonable construction in
`light of the specification of the patent in which they appear. 37 C.F.R.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`§ 100(b); Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131, 2144–46
`(2016). Under that standard, and absent any special definitions, we
`give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
`understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention. See In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed.
`Cir. 2007). Any special definitions for claim terms must be set forth
`with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision. See In re
`Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
`In our Decision to Institute, we determined that the broadest
`reasonable interpretation of the claims does not encompass a dosage
`regimen that alternates days over a period of seven days (i.e., one that
`administers the drug three times in one week and four times the next).
`Dec. Inst. 5–8. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner challenged this
`construction during trial. See generally Pet. Reply; see PO Resp. 6–7
`(stating the Board correctly construed the claims). Accordingly,
`because nothing in the full record developed during trial persuades us
`to deviate from our prior construction, we adopt the construction for
`purposes of this Decision.5
`
`
`
` 5
`
` We note that Patent Owner states that the Board correctly found that
`claim 3 “merely contains a typographical error and properly depends
`from claim 2.” PO Resp. 6–7. It appears, however, that Patent Owner
`was referring to case IPR2015-00643 and claim 3 of the ’250 patent,
`not the ’413 patent.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`
`Principles of Law
`C.
`To prevail in this inter partes review of the challenged claims,
`Petitioner must prove unpatentability by a preponderance of the
`evidence. 35 U.S.C. § 316(e); 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(d).
`A patent claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) if the
`differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are
`such that the subject matter, as a whole, would have been obvious at
`the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
`the art to which the subject matter pertains. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
`Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is
`resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations, including:
`(1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) any differences between
`the claimed subject matter and the prior art; (3) the level of skill in the
`art; and (4) objective evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John
`Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966).
`“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious
`merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently,
`known in the prior art.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. “[I]t can be important
`to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary
`skill in the relevant field to combine elements in the way the claimed
`new invention does.” Id. Moreover, a person of ordinary skill in the
`art must have had a reasonable expectation of success of doing so.
`PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1193 (Fed.
`Cir. 2014).
`We analyze the instituted grounds of unpatentability in
`accordance with the above-stated principles.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`
`D. Obviousness over Pinchasi and the 1996 SBOA
`
`Petitioner argues that claims 1–20 are unpatentable as obvious
`over Pinchasi and the 1996 SBOA. Pet. 51–55. Based on the full trial
`record, we determine that Petitioner has established by a
`preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–20 are unpatentable over
`Pinchasi and the 1996 SBOA.
`Pinchasi (Ex. 1005)
`1.
`Pinchasi is a published PCT application that relates to a method
`of alleviating a symptom of a patient suffering from a relapsing form
`of MS. Ex. 1005, 9.6 The method comprises periodically
`administering by subcutaneous injection a 40 mg dose of GA. Id.
`Pinchasi discloses that the GA can be administered daily or every
`other day. Id. Pinchasi also discloses that the alleviated symptom can
`be the frequency of relapses. Id.
`The 1996 SBOA (Ex. 1007)
`2.
`The 1996 SBOA is a compilation of documents relating to the
`Summary Basis of Approval for the New Drug Application (“NDA”)
`for 20 mg Copaxone®. The compilation includes a review and
`evaluation of clinical data submitted by the sponsor of the NDA, Teva
`Pharmaceuticals, USA (“Teva”). Ex. 1007, 24–124. Certain
`reviewers raised the question of whether daily injections of the drug
`were necessary, stating “I would recommend that the Sponsor
`
`
`
` 6
`
` Unless stated otherwise, we cite to the unique page numbers
`provided by the parties in the lower right hand corner of the exhibits,
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 42.63(d)(2).
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`evaluate the necessity of daily [subcutaneous] injections as opposed to
`more infrequent intermittent administration of the drug.” Id. at 252.
`The 1996 SBOA also includes a review of the pharmacology and
`toxicology studies submitted by Teva. Id. at 125–292. The NDA
`was approved on December 20, 1996. Id. at 4.
`Analysis
`3.
`We have reviewed the arguments and evidence presented by
`both parties, and we are persuaded that Petitioner has shown by a
`preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims are
`unpatentable as obvious over Pinchasi and the 1996 SBOA.
`a. Whether the 1996 SBOA Is a Printed Publication
`As an initial matter, we note that Patent Owner argued in its
`Preliminary Response that Petitioner failed to establish that the 1996
`SBOA is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Prelim.
`Resp. 48–50. Patent Owner does not, however, challenge the
`reference in its Patent Owner Response.
`Nevertheless, on this record, we determine that Petitioner has
`shown sufficiently that the 1996 SBOA constitutes prior art to the
`’413 patent. As support, Petitioner offers a declaration from Marlene
`S. Bobka, the president of FOI Services, Inc., which provided the
`1996 SBOA to Petitioner. Ex. 1007, 1. Ms. Bobka states that FOI
`Services specializes in U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”)
`information and “maintains a private library of over 150,000 FDA
`documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.” Id. Ms.
`Bobka further states that FOI Services sells the documents and
`provided the 1996 SBOA to Petitioner on July 17, 2007. Id. Because
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`the uncontroverted evidence shows Petitioner was able to obtain the
`1996 SBOA from FOI Services on July 17, 2007, we determine that
`the 1996 SBOA was publicly available at least as of that date, which
`is before the earliest possible critical date of the ’413 patent (i.e.,
`August 20, 2008). See Ex. 1001, [60]; see also Voter Verified, Inc. v.
`Premier Election Solutions, 698 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`(“[T]he key inquiry is whether the reference was made ‘sufficiently
`accessible to the public interested in the art’ before the critical date.’”)
`(quoting In re Cronyn, 890 F.2d 1158, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
`Independent Claims 1, 19, and 20
`b.
`We next consider whether claims 1–20 are unpatentable as
`obvious over Pinchasi and the 1996 SBOA. Regarding independent
`claims 1, 19, and 20, we are persuaded by Petitioner and the testimony
`of its declarant, Dr. Ari Green, that Pinchasi discloses each limitation
`of the claims, except for the dosing regimen of three doses per seven
`day period. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 82–84. Specifically, Petitioner argues
`that Pinchasi teaches the preamble of the claims by disclosing that the
`invention provides a method of alleviating a symptom of a patient
`suffering from a relapsing form of MS, where the symptom is the
`“frequency of relapses.” Pet. 21 (citing Ex. 1005, 8:2–4, 14–15).7
`Regarding the dosage amount of 1 mL of a pharmaceutical
`composition comprising 40 mg of GA, Petitioner asserts that Pinchasi
`teaches administering a subcutaneous injection of a pharmaceutical
`
`
`
` 7
`
` We note that the Petition cites the page numbers of Pinchasi rather
`than the page number provided pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.63(d)(2)
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`composition comprising 40 mg of GA and 40 mg of Mannitol USP in
`1 mL sterilized water. Id. at 22–23 (citing Ex. 1005, 5:2–8, 13:21–24,
`Example 1).
`Patent Owner does not contest that Pinchasi teaches these claim
`limitations. Accordingly, based on the full record developed at trial,
`we determine for the reasons stated in the Petition that Pinchasi
`teaches each limitation of claims 1, 19, and 20, with the exception of
`the dosing frequency of three times per week. See id. at 21–23.
`Petitioner argues that the dosing frequency would have been
`obvious because an ordinary artisan would have considered six doses
`over two seven-day periods to be therapeutically equivalent to and
`have substantially the same pharmacological effect as seven doses
`over the same period. Id. at 46 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 89–94, 104–106;
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 122–25). Petitioner further argues that an ordinary
`artisan would have been motivated to modify the dosing regimen of
`Pinchasi to exactly three injections per seven-day period to reduce the
`frequency of injections, which would reduce the frequency of side
`effects. Id. at 46–47 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 103, 104, 109; Ex. 1003
`¶¶ 116, 166, 167, 170). Three injections per week would also allow
`for a more convenient dosing schedule, which would improve patient
`compliance with the dosing regimen. Id. at 47 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 105;
`Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 107–10). Petitioner also contends that the 1996 SBOA
`teaches that the half-life for Copaxone® is approximately 80 hours in
`a Cynomolgus monkey, and that pharmacokinetic data from such a
`monkey was a reliable model for predicting human pharmacokinetic
`parameters and creating dosing schedules. Pet. 52 (citing Ex. 1007A,
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`66; Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 127, 133, 136–38). Accordingly, Petitioner argues
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
`injection frequencies could be reduced as far as approximately once
`every 80 hours while maintaining the same safety and tolerability
`profiles. Id. at 53 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 139–41).
`In response, Patent Owner urges that a person of ordinary skill
`in the art would not have found the claimed dosing regimen obvious.
`Patent Owner argues that an ordinary artisan would not have used 40
`mg of GA on any dosing schedule, and would not have used a three
`times per week regimen. PO Resp. 17–32. Patent Owner also argues
`that there was no motivation to combine Pinchasi with the 1996
`SBOA. Id. at 32–35. Finally, Patent Owner argues that an ordinary
`artisan would not have had a reasonable expectation of success that a
`40 mg dose of GA three times a week would be therapeutically
`effective. Id. at 36–50.
`Upon reviewing the entire trial record, we determine that
`Pinchasi teaches each limitation of claim 1, with the exception of the
`claimed dosing limitation. Moreover, for the reasons explained in the
`Petition and by Petitioner’s experts, Drs. Peroutka and Green, we
`determine that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
`reason to modify Pinchasi to administer 40 mg of GA three times a
`week. In particular, we credit the testimony of Dr. Green, who notes
`that Pinchasi demonstrates increased efficacy with 40 mg GA when
`compared to 20 mg GA with no significant difference in side effects.
`Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 98–99. Indeed, Pinchasi concludes:
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`
`The increased efficacy observed with 40 mg/day GA in
`reducing MRI-measured disease activity and relapse rate
`indicates that it is well tolerated and can improve the
`treatment of RRMS patients. The improvement in
`efficacy, however, is not accompanied by a corresponding
`increase of adverse reactions which would be expected
`upon a doubling of the administered dose.
`
`Also observed was the accelerated rate at which the 40
`mg/day dose became effective as compared to the 20
`mg/day dose. This was unexpected. Specifically, the 40
`mg/day dose showed efficacy, as measured by MRI, by the
`third month, whereas the 20 mg/day dose did not show
`efficacy until the sixth month.
`
`Ex. 1005, 20:8–21:6. We are therefore persuaded by Dr. Green’s
`testimony that Pinchasi would have strongly suggested to an ordinary
`artisan to use 40 mg GA for RMSS patients. See Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 99.
`Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would not have used 40 mg of GA because a later phase III clinical
`trial (the “FORTE trial”) demonstrated that 40 mg of GA was not
`more effective than 20 mg of GA, and 40 mg of GA was associated
`with more frequent adverse events. PO Resp. 17–20. Upon
`considering the evidence as a whole, we are not persuaded. That the
`FORTE trial found that “the 40 mg dose did not demonstrate
`increased efficacy in reducing the relapse rate” does not amount to
`teaching away from the 40 mg dose. Ex. 2001, 1 (emphasis added).
`This is particularly true where the FORTE trial then states that “the
`higher [40 mg] dose maintained the favorable safety and tolerability
`profile of COPAXONE® 20mg.” Id. Thus, because nothing in
`FORTE criticizes, discredits, or discourages the use of 40 mg of GA,
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`we determine that FORTE does not teach away from the use of 40 mg
`of GA. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
`(finding “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative
`does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives
`because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise
`discourage the solution claimed”).
`We also determine that an ordinary artisan would have had a
`reason to modify Pinchasi’s dosing regimen of 40 mg of GA every
`other day to 40 mg of GA three times a week. We are persuaded by
`Dr. Green’s testimony that an ordinary artisan would have been
`motivated to adopt a three times per week dosing regimen to increase
`patient compliance. For example, Dr. Green testifies that it was a
`well-known principle that decreasing the frequency of injections
`would have a positive impact on patients to stay on course with
`treatment. Ex. 1004 ¶ 100. The desirability of less frequent injections
`is supported by the 1996 SBOA, which “recommend[ed] that [Teva]
`evaluate the necessity of daily s.c. injections as opposed to more
`infrequent intermittent administration of the drug.” Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 101–
`02; Ex. 1085 ¶ 17 (quoting Ex. 1007, 252).
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`
`As support for the well-known desirability of less frequent
`injections of GA, Dr. Green also cites Khan 20088 and Caon 20099,
`which both disclose a pilot trial comparing the effect of 20 mg of GA
`daily versus every other day.10 Ex. 1085 ¶ 18. The study suggests
`that 20 mg of GA daily or every other day may be equally effective in
`treating RRMS. Ex. 1010; Ex. 1011. Moreover, after two years, “all
`patients in the [daily] group opted to switch to [every other day].”
`Ex. 1010; Ex. 1011.
`Dr. Green also cites Khan 2009,11 which discloses another pilot
`study comparing 20 mg of GA daily or twice a week.12 Ex. 1085 ¶
`32. Although Khan 2009 was published three weeks after the priority
`date of the ’413 patent, Khan 2009 reports results of a two-year study.
`
`
`
` 8
`
` Khan et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year,
`Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day
`Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in Relapsing-
`Remitting Multiple Sclerosis, 14 MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS S296 (2008)
`(Ex. 1010) (“Khan 2008”).
`9 Caon et al., Randomized, Prospective, Rater-Blinded, Four-Year,
`Pilot Study to Compare the Effect of Daily Versus Every-Other-Day
`Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Injections in RRMS, 72
`NEUROLOGY A317 (Mar. 17, 2009) (Ex. 1011) (“Caon 2009”).
`10 The parties’ declarants agree that Khan 2008 and Caon 2009
`describe the same pilot study. Ex. 1085 ¶ 18; Ex. 2135, 73 n.2.
`11 Khan et al., Glatiramer Acetate 20 mg Subcutaneous Twice-Weekly
`Versus Daily Injections: Results of a Pilot, Prospective, Randomized,
`and Rater-Blinded Clinical and MRI 2-Year Study in Relapsing
`Remitting Multiple Sclerosis, 15 MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS S249 (2009)
`(Ex. 1089) (“Khan 2009”).
`12 We understand Patent Owner has moved to exclude Khan 2009.
`We deny Patent Owner’s motion for the reasons stated in more detail
`below.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`Ex. 1089, 2. Upon finding similar results between the two dosing
`regimens after two years, Khan 2009 states: “This study provides
`further evidence that GA administered less frequently than daily may
`be as efficacious and better tolerated than GA administered daily.
`This may have a significant impact on improving compliance and
`tolerability while maintaining the desired immunomodulating effect of
`GA.” Id. We therefore agree with Dr. Green that Khan 2009 suggests
`that those skilled in the art at the time of the invention were motivated
`to investigate dosing regimens of GA with fewer injections to improve
`patient compliance.
`Moreover, Pinchasi discloses administration of the 40 mg dose
`every other day. Ex. 1005, 9:1−11. Thus, the difference between the
`challenged claims and the prior art is a dosing schedule that is
`decreased by one day every two weeks—i.e., the difference between
`every other day disclosed in the prior art and the requirement of three
`doses per week recited in the claims. Ex. 1004 ¶ 91. In this regard,
`Dr. Green testifies that setting a course of treatment for the same day
`each week, for example on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, is an
`easier dosing schedule to follow than every other day, which would
`occur on different days of the week throughout the month. Id. ¶ 105.
`In light of the evidence as a whole, we are persuaded that an ordinary
`artisan would have understood the benefits of less frequent injections
`and, therefore, would have had a reason to reduce Pinchasi’s dosing
`regimen to three times per week.
`We are also persuaded by Dr. Green’s testimony and supporting
`evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`reasonable expectation of success in administering 40 mg of GA three
`times a week. We credit Dr. Green’s testimony that an ordinary
`artisan would have considered GA to be a “forgiving drug.” Ex. 1085
`¶ 19. Dr. Green testifies that it was a standard instruction for patients
`who miss a dose to skip the dose rather than take a double dose.
`Ex. 1004 ¶ 90 (citing Ex. 1062, which states, “If you miss a dose [of
`GA], take it as soon as you remember. If you do not remember until
`the following day, skip the missed dose and continue with your
`regular dosing schedule.”); Ex. 1085 ¶ 19 (citing Ex. 1086, which
`states, “If you miss a dose, take your COPAXONE® as soon as you
`remember. If it is nearer to the time of your next scheduled dose, skip
`the missed dose and resume your usual dosing schedule.”)13.
` Dr. Green also explains that the wide range of likely
`efficacious doses suggests the forgiving nature of GA. Ex. 1085
`¶¶ 20–21. Flechter and Khan 2008/Caon 2009 disclose 20 mg of GA
`every other day (i.e., 70 mg per week), whereas Pinchasi discloses 40
`mg of GA daily (i.e., 280 mg. per week). Ex. 1008; Ex. 1010;
`Ex. 1011; Ex. 1005, 9:2–11. Because 40 mg three times a week (i.e.,
`120 mg per week) is in the middle of the range of known effective
`weekly doses and is close to the FDA-approved 20 mg daily regimen
`(i.e., 140 mg per week), we are persuaded by Dr. Green’s testimony
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
`
`
`
`13 We note that Patent Owner has moved to exclude Ex. 1086. We
`deny Patent Owner’s motion, for the reasons stated in more detail
`below.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`expected 40 mg of GA three times a week to be successful. Ex. 1085
`¶ 21.
`
`Patent Owner contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art
`would not have found the claimed dosing regimen obvious because
`the mechanism of action of GA was still unknown, which would have
`taught away from three times weekly dosing. PO Resp. 22–28.
`According to Patent Owner and its declarant, Dr. Tjalf Ziemssen,
`based on the prevalent theories on GA’s mechanism of action, an
`ordinary artisan would have believed that administering the drug more
`frequently than once daily would be the best way to enhance efficacy.
`Id. at 25; Ex. 2135 ¶¶ 44– 150. We do not, however, find Dr.
`Ziemssen’s testimony persuasive, given the various prior art
`references that teach less frequent dosing of GA, thereby contradicting
`Dr. Ziemssen’s opinion. See, e.g., Ex. 1005 (Pinchasi dosing every
`other day); Ex. 1008 (Flechter dosing every other day); Ex. 1010
`(Khan 2008 dosing every other day), Ex. 1089 (Khan 2009 dosing
`twice a week). We also credit the testimony of Dr. Green, who
`explains that, given the uncertainty regarding GA’s mechanism of
`action, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not rely on any
`single theory in deciding which dosage regimen to pursue. Ex. 1085
`¶ 44. Dr. Green continues, stating that “[i]f anything, the uncertainty
`surrounding GA’s mechanism of action would motivate a POSA to
`investigate dosing regimens with existing and even preliminary
`clinical support.” Id.
`Patent Owner also argues that a person of ordinary skill in the
`art would not have combined Pinchasi with the 1996 SBOA to arrive
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`at the claimed dosing regimen. PO Resp. 32–35. Patent Owner
`asserts that, although Pinchasi discloses the use of 40 mg of GA, the
`later FORTE results would have caused an ordinary artisan to discard
`the 40 mg dose altogether. Id. at 32. Patent Owner also notes that
`Pinchasi does not suggest dosing three times weekly, and that the
`1996 SBOA does not cure either deficiency of Pinchasi. Id. at 33.
`As explained above, we reject Patent Owner’s argument that
`Pinchasi teaches away from the use of 40 mg of GA. As for the three
`times weekly dosing regimen, Patent Owner asserts that an ordinary
`artisan would have ignored the suggestion for less frequent dosing in
`the 1996 SBOA because the suggestion was based on the erroneous
`belief that GA was acting as a “peptide vaccine.” Id. at 34. We are
`not persuaded, particularly in light of Dr. Green’s testimony that it did
`not matter to an ordinary artisan in 2009 that GA was not a peptide
`vaccine because the ultimate conclusion still holds in light of the prior
`art clinical observations that made it clear that daily injections were
`unnecessary. Ex. 1065, 151:24–155:5. In other words, even if an
`ordinary artisan knew GA was not a peptide vaccine in 2009, the 1996
`SBOA must still be read in the context of the prior art as a whole,
`which suggested less frequent dosing of GA was desirable. See In re
`Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (stating prior art
`“must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in
`combination with the prior art as a whole”); see also In re Young, 927
`F.2d 588, 591 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[A] reference which disclosed
`obsolete technology remained in the prior art. This court considered
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`IPR2015-00644
`Patent 8,399,413 B2
`
`the reference for what it disclosed in relation to the claimed
`invention.”).
`Finally, Patent Owner asserts that a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success that the
`claimed dosing regimen would be effective. PO Resp. 36–50. Patent
`Owner argues that because t

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket